Children's Music Education in a Second Language: A Qualitative Case Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examined how the teaching and learning processes of music and piano concepts occur in a bilingual environment when students have yet to master English as an additional language. The focus of this inquiry was on the students’ learning outcomes related to music as well as the methodologies and teaching practices used by the teacher to facilitate the students’ learning within the classroom. In order to understand this phenomenon, the study was conducted using the methodology of a single case study. The case was a group of immigrant children who lived in Canada for less than two years and spoke other languages than English at home. They had limited proficiency in the English language and their ages varied from 5 to 9 years old. The teacher, who was a volunteer in this study, was born in Canada and only spoke English. The study consisted of eight weekly 30-minute lessons led by the teacher. Data were collected through three different methods: Lesson observations, interviews with participants, and analysis of curriculum documents. The results indicate that three elements were essential for the learning process to happen: (1) The teacher’s methodology, pedagogy, and approach; (2) the students’ ways of learning—their creativity, curiosity, motivation, and behaviour; and (3) the role of a well-designed and structured curriculum that contained essential music content and introductory piano skills aimed to be taught to children ages 5 to 9 years old.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".